Flournoy v. Wiener
Headline: Court denies rehearing and adds that because the appellant never argued a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the Louisiana law, the Court lacks power to review the federal claim and the appeal cannot proceed.
Holding: Because the appellant failed to raise or brief a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the Louisiana statute here, the Court holds it lacks power to review the federal question on appeal or by petition and denies rehearing.
- Prevents the Court from deciding a Fourteenth Amendment challenge not raised or briefed here.
- Stops the appeal from proceeding on that federal question for lack of review power.
- Denies rehearing and adds an explanatory paragraph to the opinion.
Summary
Background
A person appealed after the Louisiana Supreme Court held a federal law invalid and assigned that decision as error. The appellant could have raised other denials of federal rights on appeal or filed a separate petition asking the Justices to review the state-court ruling, but did not present a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to this Court.
Reasoning
The central question was whether this Court could decide the federal constitutional issue. The Court explained that when a state court invalidates a federal statute, the matter can come here by appeal or by a separate petition for review, citing prior cases. Because the appellant failed to raise or brief any challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment in this Court, the Court concluded it lacked power to decide that federal question on appeal or by a review petition. The Court therefore added an explanatory paragraph to the opinion and denied the petition for rehearing.
Real world impact
This is a procedural ruling that prevents the Court from reaching the constitutional merits because the federal question was not presented here. Parties seeking a Supreme Court decision on federal-law claims must properly raise and brief those claims. The denial of rehearing leaves the amended opinion as the controlling statement of the Court’s action. Lower courts and the parties will treat the amended opinion as the Court’s guiding statement on the procedural rule.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?